Everything comes down to faith. At some point within our lives we all choose to evaluate the world through some sort of means. Some of these means are the Bible, while some of these means involves reason. However, regardless of what type of means you choose to evaluate the world with, you cannot use the very thing that you have chosen for evaluation to give credibility to the means. That is to say, myself using the Bible to advocate the Bible. Continued, it is to say that reason cannot be used to advocate reason. An outside source from your means of evaluation must be used to advocate and give credibility to your means. Therefore, faith is in everything that involves some sort of worldview. I have faith in the Bible. Others have faith in reason. It is when a source that is hostile to your means, advocates your means that one can fully trust that very thing you have so much faith in.
Based on an argument made by Douglas Wilson from Collision the movie.
Ahhh, presuppositional apologetics, the Christians finally admitting they've got nothing left to argue with.
Well, I'll tell you why reason is different to faith. You can test reason. Reason is reliable, repeatable, reproducible, and accurate. Faith is admitting something can't be tested but believing it anyway.
You appear to admit something can't be tested. It seems more reasonable to me to think of faith as an admission that our tests aren't perfectly reliable.
Do you mean right now? Because right now we can't test to see if there's anything outside our universe. We can't test the conditions before the big bang, because singularities don't follow familiar laws of physics. That is why it is useless to make claims about the supernatural, as they cannot be tested or falsified.
We can test, or could test, everything within our own universe. I am not the smartest person in the world, and if you could give me an example of something we couldn't test, I'd be happy to accept it, providing you're right.
Long story short, if we can't test something, it is not reasonable to assume it's existence or that it works, because there's no way to find out.
At some point within our lives we all choose to evaluate the world through some sort of means.
The primary means are always the intellectual constructs of the individual.
Some of these means are the Bible, while some of these means involves reason.
There are various external record keeping tools like the bible that that are used to create standardized intellectual constructs found to be beneficial. ALL of these involve reason.
you cannot use the very thing that you have chosen for evaluation to give credibility to the means.
That doesn't make sense to me. If I have a rubber ball, and I claim that it bounces, what should I use to give credibility to my claim?
Continued, it is to say that reason cannot be used to advocate reason.
Yet I am doing so right now!?
An outside source from your means of evaluation must be used to advocate and give credibility to your means.
If you are concerned with being credible...I agree
I have faith in the Bible.
Me too, I have faith that it's useful for promoting atheism
Others have faith in reason.
If you are on a debate site you have faith in reason.
It is when a source that is hostile to your means, advocates your means that one can fully trust that very thing you have so much faith in.
Have you ever heard about Erich Fromm? He also added that we all should have faith in Man; and these two types of faith must not be carried on in a passive way, the point the more important is to act actively throughout our life.
Have you heard of me? I'm the guy that pointed out that by nature faith is not passive. I am going to have to mill the idea of "acting actively" around in my head for a bit because I can figure how to do any different.
Faith by nature is something active? This is true as the fact that by nature all men are rich. How many people do you know who state to have faith in something, while they ain't move a finger to reach the target of their faith: christians, protestants, those who have faith in the state (yes, this is a type of "faith" too), and by doing so they cross their arms thinking faith to be something easy as existing: unfortunately, they will never know what living means.
Faith by nature is something active? This is true as the fact that by nature all men are rich.
more or less, yes.
How many people do you know who state to have faith in something, while they ain't move a finger to reach the target of their faith:
I can't say. Supposing these people (liars) claimed to have faith in X, and did not. They still have active faith that this lying will somehow be beneficial.
they cross their arms thinking faith to be something easy as existing: unfortunately, they will never know what living means.
And we, I suppose, have some other great flaw that puts us in just as sorry of a position, and we're hopelessly screwed because of it. :P
Yes, we should have faith in the idea that by using reason to aid our decisions, we shall end up in a better position than if we made decisions based on random or arbitrary chances. Further than that, I feel 'reason' is self evident to the amount of faith you should have in it, as they're opposite words.
If you believe that Faith=A belief without proof, I assume you disagree that Proof consists merely of what is convincing in which case I'd like to read an argument from you countering it.
Semantically, yes. Karl Popper's falsifiability shows that we really know nothing, we just know what's happened so far. However, in common usage, and context, I believe that it's obvious enough that 'proof' refers to 'reasonable proof', not to an ironclad and impossible source of knowledge, but simply that without reasonable evidence.
Strictly speaking, I have 'faith' in gravity, but it is a madman who would tie himself to the ground in case gravity stopped, which is entirely possible.
In your first paragraph, and in your madman anecdote, you are admitting that there is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith, that's better than how "common usage" (in some circles) treats the concept. I have met SO many people who find it SO important to treat the concept of faith as anathema, that even when faced with what I think to be plain evidence, and careful reasoning, they ignore context, and remain fiercely stubborn; unwilling to concede even as much as you have. This debate is a perfect example, for were I not to have answered everyone on the NO side, that's the side that would be winning.
Everything comes down to faith. At some point within our lives we all choose to evaluate the world through some sort of means. Some of these means are the Bible, while some of these means involves reason. However, regardless of what type of means you choose to evaluate the world with, you cannot use the very thing that you have chosen for evaluation to give credibility to the means. That is to say, myself using the Bible to advocate the Bible. Continued, it is to say that reason cannot be used to advocate reason. An outside source from your means of evaluation must be used to advocate and give credibility to your means. Therefore, faith is in everything that involves some sort of worldview. I have faith in the Bible. Others have faith in reason. It is when a source that is hostile to your means, advocates your means that one can fully trust that very thing you have so much faith in.
It works because we've tested our ability to think logically. We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition.
But to have faith in reason to me sounds counter-intuitive.
I understand that your argument is based on the "belief without evidence" interpretation of the word faith, but this statement.... We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition. .... I don't understand. Please help
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I didn't know how to word my argument so that it covered all doubts I could think of.
I'm going to try it again...
The Scientific Method (the process I was describing) helps prove things objectively, so that it's validity is not dependent on us being there to point it out (human recognition/ acknowledgment). Because of this, we can test our reason as well.
Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability? You do realize that we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right? As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it. I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.
Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability?ou do realize hat we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right?
No. I am saying the facts that the scientific method demonstrates are not dependent upon humans being there to acknowledge it. Those facts exist without our judgment saying they do. The scientific method helps us remove most, if not all, of that obstacle of only being true by human acknowledgment. It's designed to check our judgment and to depend on the universes laws. Our conclusions may be subjective or flawed, but the facts aren't.
As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it.
Not all, some of them are tested by a method dependent on outside/universal laws.
I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.
Faith is not dependent on the evidence. If you have a belief based on faith, whether objective evidence supports your belief or is lacking in supporting your belief, you still believe in it.
It's a belief held, just because. No logic. Science is the very opposite of that. Everything is based on some type of evidence and if there isn't then that belief is not held.
If you are going to make use of reason you have to believe it will be worthwhile.
Reasoning is demonstrably accurate, as it uses the laws of logic inherent in the structure of the universe.
Faith is demonstrably accurate/inaccurate too. For example, even though I might be wrong, because there is surely a great deal of evidence I haven't considered, I have faith that the sun wont explode tomorrow. Tomorrow my faith will be tested.
I'd be interested in reading any proof you can provide that the laws of logic are inherent in the structure of the universe.
You only need faith in things you have no evidence for.
You need faith if you admit you are likely missing seriously important evidence.
If you are going to make use of reason you have to believe it will be worthwhile.
We know reason is worthwhile, it can be shown to work.
I have faith that the sun wont explode tomorrow.
You don't need faith for that. We have evidence the sun won't explode tomorrow. We have predicted the path of the sun through our galaxy, we have seen it rise everyday for thousands of years, we are constantly monitoring the chemical processes going on inside it, we have worked out the elements that make up the sun. We have observed how other stars die.
From all of this knowledge, we can predict with far more accuracy the likelihood of the sun exploding tomorrow than by merely guessing, as theists do when they guess that a god must have created the universe.
You need faith if you admit you are likely missing seriously important evidence.
Like I just said, you only need faith when you don't have evidence. If there is enough evidence, a prediction/hypothesis will stand up, if there is serious evidence missing, then we can't be sure and we have to wait until better evidence appears. A good example of this would be string theory. There is some evidence for it, and it seems to make sense in some areas, but there is too much missing for it to be considered the correct explanation yet. Physicists are still working on it. They don't sit there and go, "well, we are missing very large pieces of evidence that X is true, shall we just accept it as scientific fact anyway?".
We know reason is worthwhile, it can be shown to work.
It can also be shown not to work. Especially if the basis for our reasoning is fundamentally logically unsound, or based on incomplete information. And correct me if I am wrong but isn't this a predicament we are all beset by?
You don't need faith for that. We have evidence the sun won't explode tomorrow. We have predicted the path of the sun through our galaxy, we have seen it rise everyday for thousands of years, we are constantly monitoring the chemical processes going on inside it, we have worked out the elements that make up the sun. We have observed how other stars die.
Faith begins when you consider the evidence adequate, even though it might not be.
From all of this knowledge, we can predict with far more accuracy the likelihood of the sun exploding tomorrow than by merely guessing, as theists do when they guess that a god must have created the universe.
I am not arguing to support theism, I am arguing for what I see as a more reasonable and mature concept of what faith is than "belief without evidence". Beliefs can't form without convincing evidence.
Like I just said, you only need faith when you don't have evidence.
Are we not all lacking evidence to some degree?
If there is enough evidence, a prediction/hypothesis will stand up, if there is serious evidence missing, then we can't be sure and we have to wait until better evidence appears.
A theory need not be flawless to be mighty useful. IMO you enter the realm of theism when you assume that there is no "serious evidence missing", and you "wait until better evidence appears" as opposed to faithfully pursuing it.
A good example of this would be string theory. There is some evidence for it, and it seems to make sense in some areas, but there is too much missing for it to be considered the correct explanation yet. Physicists are still working on it.
If they didn't have faith that an understanding that's not in need of improvement can be articulated, they wouldn't pursue the holy grail of "the correct explanation".
They don't sit there and go, "well, we are missing very large pieces of evidence that X is true, shall we just accept it as scientific fact anyway?".
Nah these "new priests" sit there and suck up funds that would be better spent on health sciences.
One doesn't need faith to merely think. One needs faith to accept an ideal without evidence.
How one reasons can be different from the others. For example: a Christian can reason that evidence is not necessary in order to hold a belief, therefore having faith-based reasoning. An Atheist, on the other hand, finds that unless evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe in an ideal, therefore evidence-based reasoning.
I've always seen emotions as knee-jerk reactions. We don't really have a whole lot of control over our emotions, even though we do control how we use them. So if you're confronted with a person or statement or object that triggers a certain emotion and you immediately act on that emotion, how is that reasoned thought and action?
I suppose to some degree a persons rational for saying or doing something could be based on how they feel emotionally, but this seems to be a little wordplay trick that only serves to justify the action, not the emotion itself. Emotions and, by extension, emotional thinking don't need any kind of logic or rational to exist.
The intellectual structures and pathways through which emotional activity is carried out are initially formed by internal reasoning.
I've always seen emotions as knee-jerk reactions.
This is how they seem, but the underlying mental complexes are formed over relatively long periods of time, and except in cases of severe mental illness are universally for the reasoned purpose of protecting valuables.
We don't really have a whole lot of control over our emotions, even though we do control how we use them.
Mastering ones emotions is difficult, but worth the effort. Our emotional responses can be made to better serve us if they are carefully and consciously tended to, and NOT regarded as being, by definition, contrary to reason.
So if you're confronted with a person or statement or object that triggers a certain emotion and you immediately act on that emotion, how is that reasoned thought and action?
Well how about fear of being shot. One could stand there analyzing their odds of getting hit or go with their conditioned response and kiss the dirt or run for cover.
Emotions and, by extension, emotional thinking don't need any kind of logic or rational to exist.
and except in cases of severe mental illness are universally for the reasoned purpose of protecting valuables.
So emotions exist for the purpose of protecting valuables? Wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly.
Mastering ones emotions is difficult, but worth the effort. Our emotional responses can be made to better serve us if they are carefully and consciously tended to, and NOT regarded as being, by definition, contrary to reason.
Well I've done just what you said not to. =p Over time I've beaten my emotions into submission in favor of reason and logic. I did this because more often than not my initial, knee-jerk reaction to something (and the action I want to take, on a whim) usually isn't the smartest or most well thought out thing to do in that situation. My emotions pull of influence me one way, but if I sit and just think about it for a bit, I can usually think of a more viable alternative and understand why my initial reaction was silly and groundless.
Well how about fear of being shot. One could stand there analyzing their odds of getting hit or go with their conditioned response and kiss the dirt or run for cover.
Understanding that you are about to be shot could also provoke a very reasonable and logical response in the form of taking cover or running; fear, an emotion, is just as likely to send you running as it is to make you freeze up when you find yourself at gunpoint, which is not a logical thing to do. Neither is getting irrationally pissed off when someone says something you disagree with, and neither is reacting, on a whim, to that by turning around and punching that person in the face. Inexplicable mood swings, are another good example of an emotional state that doesn't make a whole lot of rational sense, and that doesn't aptly justify any whimsical action made during that inexplicable mood swing.
Prove it
If you are jealous, or angry, or hateful, or depressed, or happy, or whatever you don't need to use a system of rational thought to achieve or justify any of these. If you hate spiders, seeing a spider immediately evokes primal fear and loathing from you, and you're likely to either freeze up like a deer in headlights or rampage out on the spider and kill it with a blowtorch or a sledgehammer - overkill. Rationally and logically you could look at a spider and see a big not all that different than most bugs, not worthy of any additional fear or hatred, and deal with it like you would deal with other bugs.
I don't really have any studies proving this, as once again I'm all the proof I need. Personally. I understand how this falls a little short for you, but personally I've been in far to many situations when my emotions themselves are irrational, and the actions they compel me to perpetuate are illogical. If I take a moment to control my emotions and apply logic and reason, I can usually arrive at a more amicable way to feel and act.
So emotions exist for the purpose of protecting valuables? Wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly.
I was sloppy to merely state "protecting valuables". Emotions arise due to our strongest desires. Desire may be to keep (protect) and also to obtain. Paying close attention to what we are emotional about, or what fires us up, is key to self actualization.
Well I've done just what you said not to. =p Over time I've beaten my emotions into submission in favor of reason and logic.
The advantage of harnessing the power of your emotions as opposed to beating them into submission, will require that you don't view reason and emotion as polar opposites. Sure many find comfort in being dispassionate. If you are wired to stand up for what you think and feel is right though, you'll be miserable.
I did this because more often than not my initial, knee-jerk reaction to something (and the action I want to take, on a whim) usually isn't the smartest or most well thought out thing to do in that situation.
But thanks to your still functioning emotional response system, you feel strongly compelled to DO SOMETHING.
My emotions pull of influence me one way, but if I sit and just think about it for a bit, I can usually think of a more viable alternative and understand why my initial reaction was silly and groundless.
Your initial reaction was to be agitated. What do you mean by groundless? Are you saying you were agitated for no discernible reason?
One doesn't think without a reason. Not trying to equivocate here, but thought is an endeavor toward some underlying hope, and hope requires faith.
One needs faith to accept an ideal without evidence.
How is it possible for an ideal to be formed in the mind without some sort of evidence?
How one reasons can be different from the others. For example: a Christian can reason that evidence is not necessary in order to hold a belief, therefore having faith-based reasoning. An Atheist, on the other hand, finds that unless evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe in an ideal, therefore evidence-based reasoning.
Would you seriously claim that beliefs are formed without evidence? I would say that standards for what constitutes convincing evidence varies, but invariably all beliefs are based on evidence.
